Wednesday, May 18, 2022

R. Mark Lubbers Dismantles Aaron Renn's Silly Article

Note to Readers:

Aaron Renn published the article below on May 4th on his blog.

 Mark Lubbers responded in detail in an email to Aaron directly; those responses are in red below.

________________________________________________________________________________

Revisiting Mitch Daniels' "Truce" on Social  Issues 

Those who would trade cultural priorities for economic prosperity end up  with neither 

By Aaron Renn 

May 4, 2022 

There’s a myth in Indianapolis Republican circles that goes something like this: back in the good old  days, the Indiana GOP was made up of high minded, moderate statesmen from metro Indianapolis like  Richard Lugar and Bill Hudnut. Then a bunch of troglodytes from rural Indiana like Mike Pence took  over and wrecked the party and the state with extreme social conservative policies that are bad for  business. 

Huh? Who thinks this? What are you talking about? You’ve boiled down 40 years of  political history into one grossly inaccurate and confused lede. Tossing Lugar and  Hudnut into the same harness takes an extraordinary absence of knowledge; 

characterizing the Establishment wing of the Repub party as an Indianapolis club is false;  the present-day populist takeover of the Indiana Repub party has almost nothing to do  with “extreme social conservatism.” What you pejoratively term “troglodyte” – in order  to emphasize your preference for it – is not your brand of social conservatism at all.  Rather, it is a lineal descendent of 19th century know-nothingism, which Indiana’s unique  demographic/geographic construct makes enduring. It is a latent and powerful factor in  Indiana Republican politics, as it has been for almost exactly a century. In short, the  paradigm you are generating here is simply false from the start.  

Reality is very different. Since Republicans retook power in the state in 2005, Indiana has largely been  run by Republicans from metro Indianapolis who have operated according to a philosophy Mitch Daniels  called “the truce,” or the avoidance of social issues in favor of fiscal and economic development matters

The only “truce” that MD ever articulated has reference to the national politics of the  2012 presidential contest. It had no meaning at all with reference to his service as  Governor. In the context of the 2012 presidential race, the proposal for a “truce” was  overt. At NO point from 2003 to 2012, did Mitch Daniels EVER articulate the concept of  a TRUCE as either a philosophy that applied to politics or government in Indiana. The  assertion to the opposite is 100% false. 

Your attempt to redefine “the truce” is improper and false. The proposed “truce” was  specific to one time and one place – the entire nation in 2012. It was best articulated in  MD’s overwhelmingly popular C-PAC speech in February 2011. If your theory were  correct, MD would not have embraced and openly supported two anti-abortion initiatives 

in the General Assembly or celebrated their passage by signing them ON STAGE at the  annual RTL dinner.  

Re: the dominance of central Indiana in the establishment wing of the Repub party,  exactly 1/3 of MD’s vote came from the 8 counties of the Indpls MSA, 8 of 92, so this is  not odd.  

(You need to better understand the hard-fought victory won by a cadre of leaders from  Marion, Allen, Lake, and Vanderburg counties in the 1960s, largely under the leadership  of Keith Bulen. This victory supplanted the populist wing of the party – the Bill Jenner  wing, and led to political lineage that would include: Lugar, Orr, Mutz, Quayle, Coats,  Goldsmith, Daniels.) 

In terms of actual legislation enacted, Indiana is actually one of the least socially conservative red states. But the economic results have been underwhelming to poor for the state and its people. From the  standpoint of the average Republican voter, the truce was a thus a double failure.  

This is your premise. And, worse, you are trying to connect the two – economic failure  and failure to pass socially conservative laws … by blaming what falsely claim was  MD’s political philosophy of a “truce.” 

Here is the truth:  

(1) the economic results of the MD government were FAR from “underwhelming to  poor.” This is just utterly false. Compared to BOTH the state’s situation as we found it  in 2005 AND to our Great Lakes peer states during this period, MD’s results on the  economy were stunningly positive. Data proves this.  

(2) IF it is true that the Indiana’s legislative record in this period is “one of the least  socially conservative” it has NOTHING to do with Mitch Daniels – as is overtly stated,  falsely, and implied, falsely, throughout this piece. Your blithe assertion that Indiana is a  thoroughly red state is a recent phenomenon. If you want to know why legislation doesn’t  reflect your assertion of “redness” you might want to check the facts.  

The fact is that in the 22 years between the 1988 election and the 2010 election, the  Indiana House of Representatives was Republican-controlled for only 4 years (’94-96 &  ‘04-06); it was 50/50 for 4 years; and Democrat-controlled for 14 years!! … including  the middle 4 years of MD’s term of office.  

(Oh, and btw, the undoing of this even balance should be credited to the Mitch Daniels led “Aiming Higher” campaign of 2010, when riding on MD’s stunning success as  governor, we elected 60 Repubs to the House. (With MD as gov and Eric Holcomb as  state Repub chairman.)  

The worst sin of the progressive left is its penchant for presentism – judging the past thru  the lens of the present. You are bathing in the luxury of today’s supermajority House 

which was ONLY enabled by a huge win in 2010 … which gave control of redistricting  to Repubs for the first time since 1980. Twas not always so! 

So, assertion of MD’s failure on an economic agenda is false. 

The assertion that MD governed via a truce is false. 

And the asserted connection between the two is false. 

The Indianapolis GOP elites and their truce both effectively disenfranchised and impoverished the state’s  Republican voters, while the left, which never agreed to any part of a truce, made significant advances on  its won social policy agenda in the state. 

“Disenfranchised Republican voters” ??? How so? The massive re-election win by MD  in 2008 certainly indicates no such disenfranchisement. Nor Pence’s huge win in 2012.  Nor Holcomb’s in 2016. And what gains by the left? Seems like some specifics are  warranted here on all counts. 

There’s no reason to believe abandoning cultural issues in favor of economics will work anywhere. 

Another clever segue. “social issues” and “cultural issues” are not the same thing. And  again, you make the false assertion that “cultural issues” were “abandoned in favor of  economics.”  

At no time during MD’s service as Governor – which the title of this article claims to be  about – were these two aspects of governing in any kind of conflict that called for  supplanting either social or cultural issues in order to achieve outcomes on economic  issues. NOR was this tradeoff ever a part of MD’s political strategy … i.e. it was  NEVER necessary to trade off social issues for economic issues in order to maintain and,  in fact, grow substantially Mitch’s political support. Your entire premise is just a giant  fabrication. 

The Indiana GOP’s Record on Social Conservatism 

Daniels’ truce idea got big press back in 2010 and 2011 as he was exploring a bid for President. Though I  don’t recall him using the term with regards to how he governed Indiana, (because he never did) this is  basically how he operated for eight years (again, you are inaccurately applying the concept of “truce” and falsely judging MD). We see this in his own top 100 accomplishments list that’s still on the state web  site. Not one of them is a social conservative item. I’ve never once heard him speak of a social  conservative policy with regards to his tenure as governor since leaving office. A new Indianapolis  Monthly article on the state’s GOP candidly says that the social conservatives were “boxed out” during  his eight year tenure. 

This paragraph is sweeping in its inanity. Finally, you make a sideways confession that  your entire assertion about MD governing via a “truce” is false. Indeed, he never spoke  about or NEEDED to speak about this as Governor. It was never relevant. If your point  is that Establishment Republicans AND Social Conservatives are not identically rooted, 

DUH! This is SO far from earth-shattering. BUT the implication that Estab Repubs are  ambivalent on social issues is not correct.  

There were a few social conservative moves during the Daniels admin, but they were pretty small ball,  and temporary as well. The state denied, then reversed the denial of a special license plate for a gay  organization in Indy. (The state has numerous special fundraising plates like this). The state also tried to  defund Planned Parenthood, a law that was overturned in federal court. 

Most notably, at that time 29 states were passing constitutional amendments prohibiting gay marriage.  Daniels and the GOP killed one in Indiana procedurally in a state senate committee. Indiana, one of the  reddest states in the country, thus was among a minority of states that never passed a constitutional gay  marriage ban.  

“one of the reddest states in the country” …. See previous comment about 14 of 22 years  of Democrat control of the House of Representatives. And go learn something about how  the politics of this issue played into winning elections. Social conservatives are never  more proud of their achievements as when they are destined to create political backlash  that destroys everything else. …. And on this issue completely overtaken by events, so it  would have been preening at best. 

Mike Pence looms large in the myth, but was only in office for four of the 17+ consecutive years the state  the GOP has controlled the governor’s office. Pence is known almost entirely for the controversy over the  Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). This legislation unexpectedly caught the ire of corporations,  who threatened to boycott the state if it wasn’t repealed. Indiana quickly capitulated. There was nothing  

special about this law. It was based on a federal law of the same name signed by Bill Clinton. Many states  have RFRA laws on the books today, including Texas. Indiana’s number just came up. Pence also signed  some anti-abortion legislation that was overturned in the courts, with the exception of rules requiring the  burial or cremation of post-abortion remains. 

When Pence became Vice President, former Daniels campaign manager Eric Holcomb became governor.  Holcomb has not only reverted to the Daniels approach of avoiding social conservative issues when he  can, he actively signals to the left on social issues, such as by announcing the creation of a state diversity,  equity, and inclusion office, doing photo ops with refugees, and recently vetoing a ban on transgender  athletes in girls sports in the state’s schools (even though it will almost certainly be overridden). He was  one of only two GOP governors to veto such a bill. 

With the exception of abortion, where there have been some laws passed and regulatory squeezes applied  to the industry, there’s been much more noise than reality when it comes to social or cultural conservatism in Indiana.  

Dismissing the passage of legislation supported by RTL and as previously noted,  CELEBRATED, by the signing of the law at the annual RTL dinner was not  

inconsequential. And here we see the first clever elision of social issues to cultural issues. The two are NOT synonymous by any means. 

Plenty of socially conservative bills, or anti-urban bills, or various other proposals that give the left  apoplexy get introduced in the legislature every year. Many of them are frankly wacky. They cause a 

firestorm in the local press. It may be the case that business and other lobbies have to invest large  amounts of time and political capital stopping these, but almost none of them ever gets enacted. For  example, for multiple years running, conservative state senators have introduced bills to try to cancel public transit expansions in Indianapolis. These are dumb bills to be sure, but they were successfully  killed. 

Side comment … attempts to cancel public transit expansion in Indianapolis is FAR from  “dumb.” And the “business and other lobbies” (including you??) who think that  Indianapolis’s public transit investment is either economically viable or strategically  valuable are dreaming! “Mass” transit, like everything “mass” (mass communication,  mass production, mass destruction) are pre-digital age anachronisms. The post-digital  age – the age in which all information can be reduced to binary language – 0s and 1s – permits the customization of EVERYTHING, including transportation, where driverless  vehicles with no barrier to conquering “last mile” issues, will provide customized door to  door service. The investment in mass transit by the City of Indianapolis is one of the  biggest boondoggles of all time. Indianapolis, as perhaps the biggest laggard on mass  transit for over half a century, was ideally, if accidentally, positioned to be the leader in  customized driverless “public” transit. But its cadre of bureaucrat urban planners (with  a mindset that secretly detests personal liberty) triumphantly doubled down on a 100- year-old idea – bus routes. Dumb idea.  

In the supposedly troglodyte, hyper-conservative run Indiana: 

Every one of the few substantive social conservative policies I’m aware of that actually passed in the last  17 years up until this year was ultimately rolled back (albeit a couple of abortion ones by federal courts). 

The state GOP procedurally killed a gay marriage amendment. Indiana was one of only three red  states not to pass a constitutional gay marriage ban. 

It was the first red state to reject a law that would have banned teaching Critical Race Theory in  public schools. The Indy Star just ran an article doing victory dance about this. 

It is one of only two states where GOP governors vetoed legislation that would have banned  transgender athletes in girls sports. 

The state under Republican leadership has even itself advanced liberal social priorities like  creating a state DEI office and passing a hate crimes bill. 

In some respects, Indiana is actually one of the least socially conservative red states in terms of laws  actually enacted. Culturally, the state probably skews more to a folk libertarianism than hard core social  conservatism, but it’s certainly more conservative than its laws would suggest. 

The highlighted language is an important admission that deserves a great deal more  thought and discussion by the likes of Aaron Renn. And should you take up that  challenge, please also study the giant rift between Indiana’s populist conservatives – with  whom you so eagerly identify – and us Establishment Republicans who have been  fighting for 35 years for the individual rights of parents to choose their kids schools with  the full benefit of public financing over the steadfast opposition and foot-dragging of  populist rural and suburban Republicans who are perfectly happy with government  schools and have little personal or policy empathy for their fellow citizens who are  otherwise trapped in failing schools.


Who Runs the Indiana GOP? 

It’s important to also note that again, contrary to popular belief, it is actually people from metro  Indianapolis who’ve been running the state. Mitch Daniels, Eric Holcomb, state speaker of the house  Todd Huston, his predecessor Brian Bosma, state GOP chair Kyle Hupfer — all from metro Indy. (The  state senate president pro-tempore is also from metro Indy, though from a part more culturally aligned  with the rest of the state). 

As Indianapolis Monthly observed, “The moderate wing of the party was and is a creature of greater  Indianapolis.” And, “To say Daniels remade Indiana’s Republican politics in his own image would be an  understatement.” 

Mike Pence, the one exception to metro Indianapolis rule, was in power for less than a quarter of the  latest Republican streak. Anytime he or anyone else attempted or attempts to do anything contrary to the  Indianapolis agenda, they are subjected to vicious attacks. Former Daniels campaign manager Bill Osterle  openly tried to recruit someone to primary Pence for re-election (and flirted with running for governor  himself). Other Indianapolis area GOP leaders openly poured scorn on Pence. When conservative state  treasurer Richard Mourdock primaried and defeated long time Senator Richard Lugar, big tracts of  establishment GOP people voted Democrat to ensure he couldn’t win in the general election. (Rank and  file conservative voters are ironically much more loyal to the party than the elite, and will vote for  Libertarian protest candidates, but rarely for a Democrat. Many Christian leaders openly teach that it is  actually a sin to vote for a Democrat. But the leaders have no such loyalty, something I observed first  hand at the Manhattan Institute in 2016, where more of the staff probably voted for Hillary than Trump). 

Undoubtedly there are socially conservative factions within the Indiana GOP, particularly in the state  legislature. They do have to be reckoned with and sometimes placated. But they have not been the ruling  faction for vast majority of the last 17 years. And their influence has more been felt in areas like limiting  local control in municipalities than in cultural priorities. 

While the Republican governance agenda is far from reflecting the totality of the preferences of the  Indianapolis leadership class as a whole, it is Indianapolis area “moderate” Republicans who have  disproportionately steered the state. A central organizing principle of their approach since Mitch Daniels  was elected has de facto been the suppression of the cultural aspirations and preferences of the average  Republican voter in the state. 

True with respect to know-nothing populism – the historic Bill Jenner wing of the Indiana Republican party. Evan Bayh beat John Mutz in large measure by tapping these “cultural  aspirations” when he trashed the Orr-Mutz success of landing the Subaru plant in  Lafayette. Bayh tapped this deep and rich vein of Hoosier nativism, anti-foreign, anti immigrant, anti-anything that didn’t come from rightchere. Indeed, go read MD’s second  inaugural address and you will see the overt attempt to call Indiana out of its intentional  cultural aspiration to isolate and to embrace the status quo. Bob Orr and John Mutz tried  the same thing. Few others have had the guts. And, THIS is the crux of the issue. Your  social conservatism, Mr Renn, is not the same as the populist conservatism that you are  now using as a human shield. MD never tried to “suppress” anything. He tried with all  his might to lead people to a more expansive, more courageous, more ambitious but  fundamentally CONSERVATIVE place and self-image.

What Were the Results of the Truce? 

I was actually a big Daniels supporter, and with the exception of a couple of policy points agreed with  almost everything he did. I remain a great admirer of his. The idea of the truce, of trading social priorities  for fiscal discipline and economic growth sounded reasonable on paper. But did it work? 

Again, Aaron, you are articulating a giant falsehood. I know from personal involvement  that at no time during the MD years as governor was there ever any bargain like the one  you assert – in which socially conservative aims were “traded” in favor of fiscal  discipline or econ growth. The idea that MD’s interest in and dedication to  

conservativism found its expression in the Establishment Republican virtues of limiting  government and promoting individual liberty and prosperity is certainly accurate; but it is  utterly false that the pursuit of those conservative goals competed in any way with what  you call “social priorities.”  

Furthermore, no one you know is a more determined foe of the intellectual progressive  left – which is where the real culture war is being fought, NOT over the old “social  conservative” agenda. I suggest you Google, “Mitch Daniels & Howard Zinn.” You  will find Governor Daniels YEARS ahead of the battle that many of us are fighting  EVERY day now.  

Fiscally, it did. Indiana went from a budget deficit to a massive surplus and a AAA credit rating. It is one  of the nation’s fiscally strongest states. 

Economically, it was a complete failure. While the state has added population and jobs slightly faster  than some other surrounding Rust Belt states, it has been a demographic and economic laggard.  

Really? A “complete failure”? During MD’s service? Service that spanned the so-called  “great recession.” Economic laggard compared to what? In economic growth terms, the  difference in a percentage point or even half a percentage point is gigantic, yet you  dismiss such winning margins that MD achieved over all our peer states.  

Much of the state is shrinking. Job growth has trailed the nation. Personal incomes fell from an already  low level relative to the nation, making Hoosiers poorer. Wage growth has been nearly the lowest in the  nation. Talent was not attracted to the state. In fact, during the 2010s Indiana suffered its worst decade in  history for college degree attainment in terms of its performance vs. the nation.  

The share of high school grads going to college is in decline. Indiana has become a haven for low wage  employers. It is adding mostly jobs for workers with less than a high school diploma in a nation where  most job growth has been among the college educated. Many of the state’s communities continued to  physically decay. And social pathologies like opioid addiction exploded. 

These last two paragraphs are a jumble. As it relates specifically to MD, Indiana has  never had such a pro-education governor. Or a governor more determined to lift the  educational ambitions of every citizen. And virtually every economic statistic I am aware  of showed that Indiana was beating its peers during MD’s service. Although Indiana has  successfully bucked national trends on post-secondary completion, the percent of college-

going high school grads is in decline – as it is across the country – mostly in the last  decade (after MD’s service as Gov). But, Mitch Daniels is not the Republican  

gubernatorial candidate who lauded high school shop classes; you might want to look for  a different target.  

But the more important point is that the negative data to which you refer undoubtedly has  a strong core of truth. BUT THIS IS OUR LINE!! This is what we (Establishment  Repubs of the Dick Lugar / Bob Orr / John Mutz / Mitch Daniels lineage) have been  trying to get Hoosiers to understand for nigh-on 30 years. These problems are baked into  Indiana culture; the culture you have thrown in with – populist Republicanism – IS the  great barrier to economic progress. 

There have been bright spots. The tech industry in Indianapolis has grown significantly. Life sciences  manufacturing is one higher wage area where Indiana has gotten a number of wins. Yet even the CEO of  Indy’s biggest private sector employer, Eli Lilly, says the state’s educational levels aren’t up to par, and  his company has been investing elsewhere. 

Indiana’s conservative voters traded away their social priorities, and in return simply put further behind  economically and socially. Again, for them the truce was a double failure. 

I don’t claim the truce caused bad economic results, or even that Republican leadership is the primary  source. I think structural forces beyond the control of the state’s leaders were more decisive. But the truce  certainly didn’t make a positive contribution to the economy. 

There was no truce, so it couldn’t have made a positive contribution to the economy.  And now you say that the one you imagined wouldn’t have mattered. BUT because of  the truce (that didn’t exist) voters traded away their social priorities and “IN RETURN fell behind economically. FULL STOP, because this is the premise of your notably false  collection of non-sequitors: Your conclusion is that socially conservative voters would  have done better economically if they had been led by a governor who achieved none of  the very long list of achievements of Mitch Daniels that you blithely dismiss BUT had  advanced your social agenda? Aaron, this is lunacy.  

Social Policy Does Not Determine Economic Growth or Talent Attraction 

Indiana holds important lessons for both conservatives and liberals. For conservatives, it shows that the  low taxes/low regulation/libertarianish economic policy approach does not always create growth and  prosperity. 

For both liberals and conservatives, it shows that social policy has far less impact on talent attraction and  economic growth than they commonly believe. 

When California passed Prop 8 banning gay marriage, was there a mass exodus of people and business  out of the state on that account? Not that I saw. In fact, the exodus of people and business has been  picking up more recently, as California has become a more solidly progressive environment. 

How much credit did Indiana get, and how much high wage investment did it attract as a result of killing  a marriage amendment? None that I saw. Though people still talk endlessly about RFRA even years 

afterward, the fact that Indiana killed off its marriage amendment is already forgotten. California passed a  constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Indiana did not. Think about that. 

Or look at Texas, which did pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, passed a RFRA law,  and which just passed a very strong anti-abortion bill. None of that seems to have even dented their  growth. Facebook even announced a major office expansion in Austin after the abortion law passed.  Texas shows that states can grow while remaining very conservative, while at the same time having cities  within them that have their own independent brand and are viewed as progressive. What the state did  actually did not harm Texas’ cities. The Texas-Austin, and Indiana-Indianapolis parallels should be  explored in more depth. 

This is not to say that Indiana should go hog wild on social conservative policies or that doing so  wouldn’t have consequences. Unlike Texas and Florida, which are large, growing states corporations  can’t ignore, Indiana is a small, stagnant, and weak state that very much can be bullied. A company like  Disney, with massive fixed capital investments in Florida, can’t walk away from that state. Conversely,  Indianapolis has built its downtown economy around hosting sporting events, and these are extremely  mobile. In fact, loss of events has been one of the few things that has happened to cities and states that  angered major corporations. Indiana, home to the NCAA, is particularly exposed here. This doesn’t just  affect Indy either, as Hoosiers love their sports, and many families come to Indianapolis from around the  state to take in those events. 

But the theories that have animated the GOP governance in the state for the last 17+ years are wrong. We  tried them and they didn’t work. 

Well … Mitch Daniels got the water bailed out of a sinking ship, made it sea-worthy in  record time, achieved some pretty stunning economic results and consistently beat all our  peer states … and …rallied a lot of people to the cause of Aiming Higher. Any fair  reading of history will confirm this, and confirm that the service of MD as governor was  a comet in the night of Indiana political history. That service ended nearly 10 years ago,  a long time ago.  

I would argue that contrary to your assertion, virtually everything that Mitch “tried” DID WORK. And no governor in history has every tried so many things, and especially BIG  things. 

If there is fault to be found in the time since Mitch was governor, you would have a better  argument if you said that Mitch’s daring and ambition have not been topped with MORE  daring and MORE ambition.  

Then, I would invite you to ask: why is that? And I would suggest that the answer is:  Because the Indiana populist conservative mindset that you are aligning with IS the  barrier to any governor leading this direction.  

Mitch did it with style and a genuine love of regular people. He never shamed anyone,  and as you note a little further below, he led by “culturally affirming” people. BUT he  never let cultural affirmation stand in the way of ambition for achievement. And so 

people followed him. This is the definition of leadership and we are not likely to see  another anytime soon. 

The next time somebody in your state or a Republican in Congress says that suppressing social  conservative policies is necessary to ensure economic growth or talent attraction, point them at Indiana  and Texas. In light of their results, there is no reason for GOP voters to ever preemptively give up on their  cultural policy preferences. 

The Coming Rupture 

Unfortunately, the lesson Indiana’s GOP establishment seems to be taking away from this is that they  should double down on their existing approach. Again, in their mythos, it’s rural hilljacks who’ve been  controlling everything and pushing bad policy. So their response is to try to suppress them even further  and do more virtue signaling around DEI, green energy, etc. Look for another attempt to preempt local  zoning control over wind and solar projects, for example. 

But the natives are getting restless. Opportunistic politicians see the chance to run as hard Trump-style  populists. State attorney general Todd Rokita, a potential 2024 gubernatorial candidate, has taken this  approach. There were twenty three primary challenges against state legislators this year, mostly by more  populist conservatives animated by social policy concerns. 

As with Donald Trump, it seems possible that this will eventually bear fruit. Indeed, we already saw this  year the legislature pass multiple socially conservative bills, including constitutional carry (allowing  people to carry a concealed weapon without a permit) and the girls sports bill. Indiana’s governor is  constitutionally weak, and his vetoes can be overridden with a simple majority vote. So Holcomb’s ability  to block social conservative legislation is limited. Should Roe vs. Wade really be overturned, Indiana  would almost certainly pass some sort of strong anti-abortion bill very quickly. 

Those who oppose this should take a look in the mirror and acknowledge their own role in making it  happen. Just as Trump could never have become the Republican nominee without the failures of the Bush  administration, the way for Indiana’s populist insurgency (to the extent that one exists) has been paved by  the double failure of the truce. 

Daniels’ would be disciples should study the master’s playbook more closely. Daniels’ truce succeeded  for him politically because he always made sure to culturally affirm the state’s people, even if he didn’t  give them everything they wanted. He campaigned in an RV. When he traveled around the state, he often  went by motorcycle, ate pork tenderloin sandwiches, and stayed in people’s homes instead of hotels. He  had a folksy demeanor and never looked down on the people. (He was also able to provide them with the  fiscal austerity and tax reform they wanted, a play that is now exhausted and can’t reap political dividends  for today’s leaders). 

Today’s metro establishment, as exemplified by Eric Holcomb, loves to poke Hoosier voters in the eye at  every opportunity. He loves to do photo ops with refugees, but when he does something for conservatives  like sign a constitutional carry law, he does it quietly. Others increasingly sound like Bill Kristol, George  Will, or David French at the national level, using their media access to denigrate the values of average  

Hoosiers in the press. Daniels would never have made these kinds of unforced errors.

Establishment Republicans should have been aggressively catering to conservative cultural preferences as  much as possible. There are a lot of these that would be bad to do, even if they are popular. But there are  many others that would be perfectly fine. They should have been passing laws for every cultural item not  significantly conflicting with the business agenda. I’m not a gun guy myself - in fact, I just shot a rifle  and pistol for the very first time ever last week - but constitutional carry should have happened a long  time ago. Holcomb should do a “victory tour” of the state shooting guns with people or something to  celebrate it. They should have been closer to the Florida approach to handling the pandemic. Ron  DeSantis reaped huge gains for his state there. 

Much of the “woke” agenda is extremely unpopular with the public, even in blue states. Look at what  happened in Virginia for example, where Republican Glenn Youngkin won the governors race in what is  now a blue state by tapping into discontent with the public schools. The Holcombites could probably  learn a lot by looking at Youngkin. 

In a democracy, you have to give your voters something of what they want, or somebody else will come  along promising to do so. The Indianapolis GOP establishment should have had a positive, prudential  cultural agenda that resonated with average Hoosier voters in order to keep them on board with the  program. But instead their position has been that the actual Republican voters of the state should be given  nothing of their cultural preferences. 

Maybe they can fend off the Trumpists. I’ve said myself that populist discontent in Indiana still largely  manifests itself in folk libertarian Tea Party register. But if not, they will have no one but themselves to  blame for what happens next. 

Aaron – there are a lot of interesting points here but none of them warrant the false  premise that you are trying to shoehorn them into.  

1. Mitch neither politicked nor governed under the “truce” philosophy; 

2. During MD’s service as governor there was NEVER any trade off between  

conservative social agenda and the economic prosperity agenda;  

3. The absence of more conservative social laws under MD owes mostly to a  

Democrat-controlled House of Rep for half his 8 years in office, and equal  

division or shadow of it for the rest of the time; and  

4. It is false that under MD, Indiana was economically – as you say – a “complete  failure.” Radically false, to the point of being false witness (if you get my drift).  In fact, the evidence and data will support the opposite … that under Mitch  

Daniels, Indiana was arguably the brightest success of any similarly situated  

state.  

Mark Lubbers  

Lugar 1977-80, 1995-96 

Orr 1983-87 

Daniels 2003-06


No comments:

Post a Comment

R. Mark Lubbers Dismantles Aaron Renn's Silly Article

Note to Readers: Aaron Renn published the article below on May 4th on his blog.  Mark Lubbers responded in detail in an email to Aaron direc...